Deal Hudson, a former Bush adviser on Catholic issues and former chairman of RNC Catholic Outreach, has an interesting piece up on his website, InsideCatholic.com. In his article, Deal explores the future of the GOP and religious conservatives, and outlines the impact of the recent McCain endorsement rejections of Evangelical stars Hagee and Parsley, and what McCain can do to claim religious conservative votes.
Are Religious Conservatives and the GOP Heading for Divorce?
by Deal W. Hudson
5/27/08On May 22, 2008,a new era began in the history of what is called the Religious Right. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain rejected the endorsements of two of the leading Evangelical pastors in the United States, Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley. The impact of McCain publicly disavowing these two major figures will create a new alignment among politically active religious conservatives and the political parties.
In my recent book Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, I wrote a final chapter titled, “Can the Democrats Get Religion, Can the Republicans Keep It?” I predicted the 2008 election would bring about a struggle within the Democratic Party to close the “God Gap,” while within the GOP those uncomfortable with the influence of conservative Christians would seek to push them to the sidelines.
The new emphasis on discussing personal faith among Democrats appears to be working. (It is noticeable, however, that the label “theocrat” has yet to be applied to Obama or Clinton, as it was to Bush and other Republican leaders who discussed their personal faith.)
Among Republicans, the move of religious conservatives to the campaign fringe has come about for two reasons, one intentional, the other accidental. When McCain was nominated, Republican voters knew that the Religious Right wasn’t going to play the role it had with Bush in 2000 and 2004. The natural affinity didn’t exist between these religious activists and the religiously reserved McCain.
The expectation remained, however, that through an effective faith outreach, the McCain campaign would bring reluctant religious conservatives into the fold. It would be a tough sell, but given the choice between Obama, the “infanticide candidate,” and the pro-life McCain, religiously active voters would come around.
Then the unforeseen happened: Hagee, the mega-church pastor from San Antonio, was charged with anti-Catholic statements by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. McCain, hesitant to offend Evangelicals, waited over a week before issuing a statement repudiating Hagee’s comments. By that time, the damage was done to Hagee among Catholics, many of whom were upset it took so long for McCain to respond. Not only did the Hagee affair threaten Catholic support, but it also cast a shadow over the 30-year coalition of Catholics and Evangelicals that make up the religious right.
The unexpected apology by Pastor Hagee to Donohue, and their subsequent warm meeting in New York City, appeared to have put the controversy to rest. It didn’t last. The Huffington Post unearthed a video of Hagee describing Adolph Hitler as God’s “hunter” who forced Jews to create the state of Israel. This time McCain did not hesitate — the next day he rejected Hagee’s endorsement and added a rejection of anti-Muslim Ohio televangelist Parsley as well.
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”
Hagee tried to beat McCain to the punch by withdrawing his endorsement. If McCain had simply waited a few hours, he could have graciously accepted Hagee’s withdrawal, thus accomplishing the same thing but softening its impact on Evangelical voters. Interestingly enough, Hagee’s former critic, Bill Donohue, immediately issued a statement defending Hagee against the ridiculous charge of anti-Semitism:
One week ago today, I met with Pastor Hagee in my office. I found him to be sincere, apologetic, and friendly. I also found him to be the strongest Christian defender of Israel I have ever met, and that is why attempts to portray him as anything but a genuine friend to Jews — one for whom the Holocaust is the horror of horrors — is despicable.
Controversial statements from leaders of the Religious Right are not new — Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson all committed their share. Never before, however, has the leader of the Republican Party made such a point of distancing himself and the party. McCain’s rejection of the endorsements, added to his already well-known reticence toward religious activists, places a marker in the political landscape that will last into November and beyond.
There will surely be those who applaud McCain for distancing himself from the “fanatics” on the Religious Right. They will argue that McCain will gain moderate support as a result. Maybe so, but much more important is the message this sends to the religiously conservative voters who have given the GOP its winning edge for nearly 30 years.
Ronald Reagan won Evangelical support with a now-famous line at a 1980 National Affairs Briefing held in Dallas: “I understand that you can’t endorse me, but I’m here to endorse you.” Some historians point to this moment as the official beginning of the Religious Right movement.
The unanswered question raised by McCain’s words on May 22 is whether he will be viewed by Evangelicals as explicitly reversing Reagan’s endorsement. How many Evangelical voters will feel rejected along with Reverend Hagee?
Within the past two months, McCain has unintentionally aggravated both Evangelicals and Catholics. Both groups had already responded to the McCain nomination with skepticism: Catholics because of McCain’s position on embryonic stem cells, Evangelicals because of his blistering attack on Falwell and Robertson after the 2000 South Carolina primary.
As things stand, I believe Catholics are still in play for McCain, if his campaign conducts a vigorous outreach. L’Affaire Hagee will be harder for his campaign to overcome with Evangelicals without significantly ramping up their relationship with grassroots leaders.
And this is no small thing: McCain will need religiously active voters over the next five months. It’s not the moderate voters who raise money, register voters, print and pass out voter guides, recruit their neighbors, and drive people to the polls. Moderates are… well… moderates. They don’t bring passion to a campaign.
The fact is, McCain’s moderates can’t beat Obama’s adoring groupies. With many religious conservative voters feeling benched, and others feeling outright rejection, the Religious Right will begin exploring other options for the investment of its energy. (Bob Barr, the newly nominated Libertarian Party candidate, may find himself the beneficiary of the present unhappiness.)
More likely, new leadership will emerge among religious conservatives propelled to the forefront by the national fight over gay marriage. McCain’s best chance to recover their support would be to make the marriage issue a priority of his campaign. Lacking that, it will take another surprising circumstance to bring the Religious Right wholeheartedly back into the presidential campaign.
Reactions? Should McCain make marriage an issue in his campaign to reach out to religious voters? Should he and his surrogates help propel the Obama Infanticide story? How do you think McCain can best reach out to religious conservatives?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Billy-you’ve got the ticket. The PAC’s need to HAMMER Obama on the infanticide issue. The disgust from that will be all the socons need to care about keeping Obama out.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Campaigning against gay marriage is toxic. Too many centrist and Republican families have gay loved ones they’d like to see in long-term relationships.
Stick with infanticide and patriotism.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
With Democrats controlling congress and say McCain does win the presidency a So-Con agenda will be almost non-existant. Republicans couldn’t even do anything when they controlled both houses of congress. For now So-Cons should take their fights to the state level.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Romney was right in his campaigning for states to the the ability to make their own abortion laws. He understood the political climate and realized it would be near impossible to achieve a broad So-con agenda at the national level. He probably would have campaigned the same way about marriage if not for what the supreme court of his state did.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Metro:
It may be toxic to Campaign against Gay Marriage in some states, but certainly not in the Mid-west.
Sean:
There is some truth that these battles should be fought on the state level as opposed to the Federal level.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If McCain campaigns on gay marriage, which 90% of Americans don’t care that much about one way or the other, he’ll be demonstrating that his priorities are out of touch with most of America and that he’s no better than a Generic Republican.
I would guess that about 5 percent of Americans think that gay marriage is a constitutional right and about 5 percent think that an anthropomorphic deity will literally throw fire at us from space if we allow gay marriage. The rest of us are trying to figure out how to pay for gas.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#6: Yes, politically, that’s the real truth.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
DaveG (#6), I chuckled at your comment, which I also wholeheartedly agree with. And that’s coming from a Baptist pastor. Who really cares about gay marriage outside of James Dobson and his most devoted followers? I sure don’t…
May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
That being said, the GOP needs religious conservatives, who are generally pretty much solely socons, as part of our conservative coalition. So you are correct in assuming McCain needs to reach out to them in order to allay fears based on his self-admitted apathy toward social issues. Gay marriage is not the way to do it, though. He’s just gotta show that he’s willing to fight for something the socons believe in. I’m guessing abortion will be the social issue McCain is closest to conservatives on. That and perhaps judges, though doubt will always remain there until he mentions Scalia and Thomas as role-model judges and not just Roberts and Alito.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Agreed. Infanticide is not or should not be a religious issue – and I am moderately pro-choice.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I believe the Obama Infanticide issue is a real winner. You don’t have to be a hard core pro-lifer to think its morally wrong to leave a baby to die and refuse medical treatment to him or her after a botched abortion.
The marriage issue is a bit more tricky; however in 2004 it really propelled evangelical turn-out for Bush, especially in states like Ohio. Also, keep in mind that in 2006, George Allen lost re-election in Virginia while the marriage amendment easily passed in the state, 57% to 43%.
The question is, would making marriage an issue bring on board more Evangelicals then it would turn-off moderates that McCain appeals to?
Or, should marriage just be left untouched and should the issue of infanticide and Obama’s extreme stances on abortion be elevated in order to turn out Evangelical votes for McCain?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I think Deal Hudson makes far to much of McCain’s rejection of Hagee, and the media has made too much of Hagee’s comments.
Hagee’s “Hitler was God’s hunter” is certainly an atrocious statement on the face of it, and implies approval of the holocost. But if we’re going to be fair, it needs to be understood within the theological context in which it was made (this was a Sunday sermon afterall, and not a press conference). Hagee is in the forefront of Zionist Christians and a dispensationalist. Though I’m Catholic, I grew up in a dispensationalist church which was also fairly Zionist. Without getting into esoteric theology here, people like Hagee see Israel as being central to history and God’s work, particularly when it comes to their wacky beliefs regarding the end times and the Second Coming. I think Hagee was saying that God used Hitler to “set the table” for the end times, a crucial element in this for dispensationalists is the re-creation of the state of Israel.
In other words, Hagee was preaching “high theology” peculiar to dispensationalists. His comments can’t be understood outside the context of Christian Zionism. That said, I think he’s way out in left field on his theology.
I don’t think many SoCons will be offended by McCain’s rejection of Hagee either- even if one accepts his (ahem) novel theology, the comment reads pretty stupid and has to be rejected.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
DaveG, you are correct that McCain should not make gay marriage is top issue. People are far more concerned about gas prices, and Obama is giving him an opening a mile wide, and it looks like Thomas Friedman is helping him if you read my post. However, I think McCain is correct to oppose gay marriage as he stated on Ellen’s show. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Matt C wrote: John McCain’s “gotta show that he’s willing to fight for something the socons believe in. I’m guessing abortion will be the social issue McCain is closest to conservatives on. That and perhaps judges, though doubt will always remain there until he mentions Scalia and Thomas as role-model judges and not just Roberts and Alito.”
I’m not sure how the promise of more Scalias on the bench gives peace of mind to pro-life voters who consider 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions to be tantamount to murder when you consider the following recent comments by Justice Scalia, himself, on 60 Minutes:
Scalia: I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases. On the abortion thing for example, if indeed I were, you know, trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.
Stahl: And you’re against that?
Scalia: Of course…there’s nothing there on that subject.
Stahl: They didn’t write about that.
Scalia: They did not write about that.
Stahl: What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?
Scalia: It has nothing to do with how I decide cases. My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.
I also fail to see how abortion is the social issue on which McCain is closest to conservatives, when, just 8-9 years ago, he shared these personal thoughts on the matter:
“Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” – John McCain, August 19, 1999
McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion “litmus” test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, “we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.” – John McCain, August 22, 1999
In January of 2000, McCain was asked what he would do if his then-15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion. He said it would be a “family decision.”
“The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel,” McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.
“I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else. Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel.”
May 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Clarence,
Yes, McCain should be FIRM on the issue of gay marriage without necessarily trumpeting it. While I absolutely believe in traditional (that is, real) marriage, and oppose civil unions and same-sex benefits, I also don’t believe in using gays as whipping posts.
Better to emphasize Obama’s defense of infanticide, which 99.5% of the country (and 100% with a conscience) will find revolting.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Aron, I agree with you on Scalia. I have been disappointed with his comments as of late. I took a civil law jurisprudence class this last semester and learned alot about him that made me like him less, and Alito and Roberts more.
Regarding McCain and abortion, your documentation is true but its over 9 years old. His comments in this election cycle have been much more pro-life, so I think he’s come a long way on the issue. I tend to credit this towards the influence that Brownback has had on him, both on the pro-life issue and judicial issues.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
How do you think McCain can best reach out to religious conservatives?
Huckabee
May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#15: Opposed not only to civil unions, but same-sex BENEFITS?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
MWS, I agree. McCain firmly states on his website that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman but certainly doesn’t go out and tout it. I think its up to outside groups to get word out to their members that he is behind them on marriage because it isn’t widely reported since he doesn’t make it an issue.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Aron,
You are right. McCain is far weaker on the Right to Life than his voting record suggests. That is one reason why his VP nominee needs to reassure skeptical SoCons (like me) that he will govern as a pro-life President, and give us a reason to care who wins.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Metro,
“#15: Opposed not only to civil unions, but same-sex BENEFITS?”
Right. Stuff like health insurance through the “partner’s” employer, joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, or benefits that would otherwise be peculiar to married couples.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
#15
Right on. McCain doesn’t need to trumpet social issues, but just be firm on them. No wavering, ever.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The economy and security are much bigger topics, but social issues are one topic McCain can’t afford to be seen as “moderate” on.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
MWS,
While the GOP is free to distort Obama’s position on abortion, just as McCain’s ’100 years’ comment was taken completely out of context by Barry and the DNC, the truth is that Obama never expressed support for doctors killing fetuses that were viable outside the womb.
A majority of Americans (all of whom have a conscience) do not find support for a woman’s existing constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy until the point of fetal viability to be “revolting.”
May 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Aron,
“the truth is that Obama never expressed support for doctors killing fetuses that were viable outside the womb.”
While he didn’t say he “supported” it, he defended it and fought to keep it legal.
To the dead babies, it’s all the same, and your semantics don’t mean a whit.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Aron,
“a woman’s existing constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy ”
Gosh, where it the Constitution does it say that a woman has the “right to terminate her pregnancy?” I can’t imagine the Founders- being men of letters- would resort to such Orwellian euphamisms as “terminate pregnancy.”
Is “terminating a pregancy” more like “terminating a lease” or more like “(ex)terminating a cockroach?” What happens to the baby’s heartbeat when the mother “terminates the pregnancy?” And why do pro-choicers go to such embarrassing lengths to hide what happens when a mother “terminates her pregnancy” or “exercises her choice?”
May 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I see gay marriage and global warming on a par. They just seem like distractions because they go against common sense. But you sense there’s this really aggressive agenda behind the superficial ridiculousness. It’s just really shoved down people’s throats, constantly, and if you take it at face value it’s hard to figure out why.
Apart from that basic observation, I care more about gas prices too.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Billy,
Scalia is spot on there and I can guarantee there isn’t a single vote on the Supreme Court for the “the constitution requires that states ban abortion” position. The constitution has nothing to say on the issue. The common law of England had nothing to say on the issue. If it’s a decision for the elected representatives.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Billy wrote: “Aron, I agree with you on Scalia. I have been disappointed with his comments as of late. I took a civil law jurisprudence class this last semester and learned alot about him that made me like him less, and Alito and Roberts more.”
It’s interesting you say that, because in Gonzales v. Carhart, the case last year in which the ban on the ‘partial birth abortion’ procedure was upheld, it was Alito and Roberts who refused to sign onto the concurrence filed by Thomas, and joined by Scalia, that asserted “the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe…has no basis in the Constitution.”
MWS,
In the Gonzales v. Carhart case, Justice Kennedy grounded the ruling in the language of Roe v. Wade:
“We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if the regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” On the other hand, “[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.”
May 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Aron,
What does your quote from Justice Kennedy prove? That the right to abortion is in the Constitution? Read the quote again. Kennedy’s talking out his @ss.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion.”
And then Kennedy goes on to arbitrarily make up the “following principles,” with absolutely no grounding in law. But he is right about one thing. They are just “assumptions,” and not in the Constitution, nor in any law which Congress passed.
Some people (especially liberals) love the Courts having this kind of arbitrary, “assumptive” power. I call it tyranny.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Aron,
BTW, you wrote that Kennedy “grounded the ruling.” His ruling is not grounded in any law or Constitution. They are “grounded” in the imagination of other lawyers. They are “grounded” in air. Your quote is a good demonstration of that, and I’m glad you shared it, so others can see how the Court doesn’t rule on law, but presumes itself to be a Super Legislature which can pull crap out of the air, based on nothing more than their capricious will, and call it “grounded law.”
Even a lot of pro-abortion liberals admit that Roe is horrible law.
Totally made up.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I really don’t see any overlapping moral principles between myself and Aron/metro/TLG.
On that level it would be easy to fall into a temptation to feel superior. In reality it’s just that I have much more in common morally with an average Nigerian or Korean than with some Americans.
It makes me wonder if there’s any point to discussing things with them. We’re like ships passing in the night. Perhaps we only see dark ghostly reflections of each other.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Doug,
To paraphrase Dostoevsky, if God is dead, then anything is permissble.
If there is no transcendent moral order (either through a personal God, or some transcendent “force”), then at the end of the day, there is no right or wrong- only force- and we live by the laws of the jungle. Sure, people can try to get everyone to sign onto a “Contract,” but without reference to a real transcendent order, there is no moral imperative, there is only force.
“You didn’t live up to the Contract.”
“So what?”
“Well, you have to, because if everyone exempted themselves from the Contract, there would be no civilization.”
“So what?”
Without the moral imperative which comes through a transcendent order, there is no way to get around the “so what?”.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Roe Vs. Wade is shitty law, that doesn’t make a law to the 100% opposite of it a good one. They both cross their boundaries.
Here’s where conservative activists put their own beliefs on conservative judiciary. I can guarentee you that not one of the current justices would fully support a law that forces states to ban abortion by way of federal government.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Shifting back to the topic at hand, I only have this to say:
As a devout Christian, I would be overjoyed to see the Christian activism get out of politics. I don’t need nor want the government to ever legislate morality on issues that are religious in nature.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are ones where the country is split close to 50-50. (Actually, for abortion, it’s more complicated than that, since there is a broad middle ground of people who consider themselves either “pro-choice with restrictions” or “pro-life with exceptions.”) For every vote McCain gains campaigning on those issues, he is likely to lose another one.
As a sideline, the mainstream media are overwhelmingly on the liberal side of those issues and many of their members may be eager to use those issues in hopes of being able to paint McCain as an extremist.
Thus, I can’t see how it would benefit McCain to emphasize those issues as a major part of his campaign. This isn’t to say that he should abandon those issues entirely, or stop taking positions that are pro-life or pro-defining marriage as heterosexual, but emphasizing them to the general public won’t help much.
In terms of reaching out to religious conservatives, those issues might help, but it would need to be done with discretion, because what McCain says to any group will become known to everyone quickly.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What the heck is anti-Catholic? Catholics have hijcked USA policy in East Europe, Rwanda, Timoor, Phillipines, Vietnam. They were responsible for slavery (Roger Taney, John Wilkes Booth) and the socialist labor movement and corrupt politics (Tammany, Daley). They have spread bigotry and government casuistry everywhere. They never hesitated to spread their bigotry. It is not racism to say this. Catholicism is a choice.